More on Holding...
It seems the end is sighted for the ongoing debate between Holding and White. As an observer who is on White's side of doctrine, Holding has been the most mischievous in my opinion. I think that he should have more respect for his fellow Christian brethren. My respect-o-meter for Holding is falling considerably.
I for one, wouldn't like my doctrines be established by an ex-librarian, but though Holding quotes from "credentialed" sources, one can counter that there is a Ph.D for the atheist and theist. The debate boils down to a simple fact: Who has the most scriptural arguments and not who quotes from the most scholarly source. I think that Holding has made a mockery of himself mocking others and hides the fact when people just have had enough of him by chiding them as "playing the cards of the atheist". This is fantastic. One can drench your arguments with countless ad hominems against your opponent; and when he has had enough and replies on the same note, you say he is acting like an atheist. Someone ought to play this game with Holding.
Since I actually used Holding's article on Unconditional Election against Calvinists; after being converted to Reformed doctrines have I now actually begun to see the errors in his critique of the U in the TULIP. I think though that Holding tries to blur the window by throwing arguments from "scholarly" sources with Ph.Ds with a good dose of ad hominem and you have got yourself a good "brick" wall. Holding fans will definitely be appeased by his quick and constant replies to his critics, excusing his behaviour towards his regenerate brethren as "warranted".
Again, the two points that I am trying to bring out: Ph.D or no Ph.D, there is a degree for the pro and con. One can cite a degreed scholar for your opinion, but then the other side can do the same just as easily. Another thing is the way Holding treats other people. Although I have no problem with him name calling agnostics, he should reconsider his way of discourse with Christians. One might say a week or two in a Reformed Church in Vietnam will put him into perspective. His wife should slap some sense into him when it comes to dialogues with people you are going to meet with in heaven :-).
And in the end, it's up to the reader to decide which side has the best scriptural arguments. Oh, and the best manners.
I for one, wouldn't like my doctrines be established by an ex-librarian, but though Holding quotes from "credentialed" sources, one can counter that there is a Ph.D for the atheist and theist. The debate boils down to a simple fact: Who has the most scriptural arguments and not who quotes from the most scholarly source. I think that Holding has made a mockery of himself mocking others and hides the fact when people just have had enough of him by chiding them as "playing the cards of the atheist". This is fantastic. One can drench your arguments with countless ad hominems against your opponent; and when he has had enough and replies on the same note, you say he is acting like an atheist. Someone ought to play this game with Holding.
Since I actually used Holding's article on Unconditional Election against Calvinists; after being converted to Reformed doctrines have I now actually begun to see the errors in his critique of the U in the TULIP. I think though that Holding tries to blur the window by throwing arguments from "scholarly" sources with Ph.Ds with a good dose of ad hominem and you have got yourself a good "brick" wall. Holding fans will definitely be appeased by his quick and constant replies to his critics, excusing his behaviour towards his regenerate brethren as "warranted".
Again, the two points that I am trying to bring out: Ph.D or no Ph.D, there is a degree for the pro and con. One can cite a degreed scholar for your opinion, but then the other side can do the same just as easily. Another thing is the way Holding treats other people. Although I have no problem with him name calling agnostics, he should reconsider his way of discourse with Christians. One might say a week or two in a Reformed Church in Vietnam will put him into perspective. His wife should slap some sense into him when it comes to dialogues with people you are going to meet with in heaven :-).
And in the end, it's up to the reader to decide which side has the best scriptural arguments. Oh, and the best manners.
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 04, 2005 at 9:33 PM.
|
